Dynamic Syntax and dialogue modelling: Preliminaries for a dialogue-driven account of syntactic change

Kempson, Ruth; Cann, Ronnie

doi:10.1075/cilt.284.08kem

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, the terminological frameworks in use simply do not allow to represent many changes at the compositional level, changes that can severely alter the meaning of an item even on the basis of more or less the same conceptual ingredients (see the case study on fast in section 4). Isolated articles like von Fintel (1995), Kempson & Cann (2007), Merin (1996), or Zeevat & Karagjosova (2009) pose exceptions to this generalization. Generally, changes that yield functional words need to be described in terms of a semantic framework that can express the meaning of functional words.…”

Section: (4) Evans Did Not Walk Evans Did Not Walk a Step Evans Did Nmentioning

confidence: 99%

101. Grammaticalization and semantic reanalysis

Eckardt¹

2012

Handbücher Zur Sprach- Und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: (4) Evans Did Not Walk Evans Did Not Walk a Step Evans Did Nmentioning

confidence: 99%

101. Grammaticalization and semantic reanalysis

Eckardt¹

2012

Handbücher Zur Sprach- Und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As I hope to show, an expansion of the theory to encompass dialogue will not do violence to the fundamentals of FDG. What is more, such a move will allow FDG to hook up with relevant traditions in both linguistics and psycholinguistics that have re-oriented their perspective to dialogue between individual language users: One may think of the research into the interface between conversation analysis and grammar (Ford, Fox and Thompson 2002), the psycholinguistic work on the negotiation of reference (Clark and Wilkes-Gibb 1986) or the examination of syntactic change resulting from routinization of alignment patterns found in dialogue (Kempson and Cann 2007). 3 The specific aim of this paper is, accordingly, to explore the repercussions of a dialogic view for our understanding of the Contextual Component within the framework of FDG.…”

Section: The Fdg Model and The Speaker: Dynamic Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contextual component in a dialogic FDG

Mackenzie¹

2015

PRAG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) has to date been explicitly oriented to modelling the grammar of the individual speaker, with the Contextual Component being seen as supportive. If FDG is re-interpreted as dialogic, the Contextual Component emerges as being shared by all interactants in the dialogue and as playing a central role in interaction. A dialogic FDG is proposed to provide a basis for understanding the role of interpersonal alignment in conversation as well as reflecting developments in psycholinguistics. It is applied to the analysis of eight extracts from a dialogue transcription in Eggins and Slade (2005).

show abstract

Concepts of structural underspecification in Bantu and Romance

Marten

Kempson

Bouzouita

2008

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper explores parallelisms between Bantu (specifically Otjiherero) and Romance (through Latin and Spanish) with respect to left and right peripheries, and subject and object clitics. The analysis is formulated in Dynamic Syntax (DS, Cann et al. 2005) and centrally involves notions of structural underspecification. Through providing detailed analyses of different word order possibilities in the Bantu and Romance languages discussed, we show how DS concepts of structural growth over initially underspecified tree relations, such as the building of linked structures and unfixed nodes, provide a uniform basis for analysis for word order variation across the two language groups. We then extend our analysis to include Bantu subject/ object markers, which we analyse by employing the same formal tools as used in the analysis of Romance (object) clitics, namely unfixed nodes which have to be construed within a tightly locally restricted domain. Empirical support for our analysis comes from restrictions on the presence of object markers in passive and locative inversion constructions in Otjiherero, which we show to follow from independent constraints of the availability of unfixed nodes within a given domain. The analyses of Bantu and Romance presented show that despite differences in surface morphology between the two language groups, both exhibit a striking parallel with respect to the way lexical information and general structure building principles of DS interact. The difference between Romance clitic systems and the agglutinative morphology of Bantu subject and object makers is thus seen to be comparatively superficial, while the DS analysis brings out the strong structural parallelism between the two language groups. 1

show abstract

Dynamic Syntax and dialogue modelling: Preliminaries for a dialogue-driven account of syntactic change

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

101. Grammaticalization and semantic reanalysis

101. Grammaticalization and semantic reanalysis

The contextual component in a dialogic FDG

Concepts of structural underspecification in Bantu and Romance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About